If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Stephen Curry vs Jordan Hill

Golden State have a litter of SG in......Jackson, Ellis, Azu. Morrow, and Curry.
But the hitch is coach Don Nelson is letting 7th pick Stephen Curry average 32 minutes of playingtime in 4 preseason games. The Knicks must make a trade for 1 or 2 of GS SG.

The Knicks only have one PF in David Lee and a half of a center in Darko, and the best coach Dantoni could do for 8th pick PF-Jordan Hill in 2 preseason games is 14 minutes of playingtime.

Is Jordan Hills performance that bad to where he does not deserve at least 24 minutes of playingtime in the preseason games? after the ending of the 3rd qtr. in the Knicks vs Boston game where Jordan Hill received no playingtime in all 3 quarters.....my mind starts to wander around this type of Knick coach decision-making with Boston beating us on the boards all 3 quarters with Perkins, KG, Big Baby, Rasheed, and Scalibrine.....why our top draft pick is not in the game getting top of the line experience vs the top frontcourt rotation in the NBA?
Wilson Chandler's game injury at the end of the 3rd quarter seem like the only reason why Jordan Hill started the 4th quarter. Hills performance was so decent vs Boston Bigmen that he had to play the entire 12 minutes of the game.

I am curious b/c I seen coach Isiah Thomas do the samething to rookie Wilson Chandler in his first preseason games, and throughout a regular season. Is this the same plan that Dantoni have for Jordan Hill???

Golden State have a litter of SG in......Jackson, Ellis, Azu. Morrow, and Curry.
But the hitch is coach Don Nelson is letting 7th pick Stephen Curry average 32 minutes of playingtime in 4 preseason games. The Knicks must make a trade for 1 or 2 of GS SG.

Jeffries + Eddy Curry for Jackson and Ellis.

No way Golden State would go for this unless things get really bad with those two disgruntled players that want out.

It wouldn't affect our cap space for this offseason and we would have a starting PG and SG. Then go after 1 max-player, sign Lee and 1 other player with the mid-level exception and we have ourselves a team.

This would eat up any cap space for 2011 but at some point Donnie is going to have to start thinking about trying to build a team now instead of trying to build a team from scratch next year.

I realize this trade has about a zero percent chance of happening but I think Donnie needs to explore trades for Curry and Jeffries for something other than expiring contracts.

I typically disagree with Kiya about 95% of the time (and I disagree with the Hill should be played more argument) but I actually agree with Kiya that we should explore getting the guards from GS.

Curry and Jeffries can not be traded for expiring contracts this year. Expiring deals are too valuable. But!! Curry's and Jeffries contracts expire at the end of next year and are more valuable to teams with disgruntled players that have long term contracts that would be otherwise considered untradeable. Like Jackson and Ellis. Or maybe Hinrich in Chicago.

I think I've explained in several threads how we don't have enough money (cap space) to build a team from scratch next year.

Donnie has achieved a great deal of cap space for this offseason. I don't think he can get anymore space. If Curry and Jeffries are on the books for 2010, we might as well try to get some talent that doesn't take away from 2010's cap space but could be part of the future and fills our future needs (i.e. PG, SG and C)

Curry and Jeffries can not be traded for expiring contracts this year. Expiring deals are too valuable. But!! Curry's and Jeffries contracts expire at the end of next year and are more valuable to teams with disgruntled players that have long term contracts that would be otherwise considered untradeable. Like Jackson and Ellis. Or maybe Hinrich in Chicago.

Hold on! that was my big arguement in the 2008 offseason when Walsh turned down the Zach Randolph trade to the Clippers.
We had 8 veteran players at the time that did not get along or play along with each other.
Curry, James, Zach, Jefferies, Malik, Q.Rich, Crawful, and Marbury, all troubled players.
I just wanted all 8 veteran players off the team in exchange for players that will play alongside of the young players.
It is great if some expiring contracts come back in return for a 2010 plan, but the 2010 plan should'nt have stopped any discussion of getting rid of those 8 veterans to put peace in the lockerroom amongst teammates.

LJ4.....I have to agree with u 100% on this one, although Jefferies defensiveness may be wanted around the league by Christmas, but if Curry is not behind the scene working out steady then Curry expiring contract maybe usable in the 2010 offseason.

I am not happy with the transactions this offseason, the Douglas pickup was some decent young depth added to the bench however, not using the MLE in signing or trading to get us a natural NBA SG to make the guard rotation complete with Douglas, Nate, and Duhon, limits the PG from doing many things.
Larry Hughes is a disaster waiting to happen, since his arrival we have not got one decent game from Duhon. Duhon is not playing up to par of what he was giving us before Hughes arrived.

Last season we had:
a natural NBA PG in Duhon
a natural NBA combo-guard in Nate
a natural NBA SF in Chandler
a natural NBA PF in Lee
These players were not great or super-stars but they held down their position vs the best of teams in the league.
It was Walsh & Dantoni's job to fill in the blanks this offseason for improvement from last season.

Looking at all the SG on Golden States roster (Jackson, Ellis, and Morrow) and how one of those SG could make a winning difference in a rotation with Douglas, Nate, and Duhon this season.....makes me want a trade with GS asap, it dont matter if it is a 3 team or 4 team trade as long as we get a SG out of the deal.

Looking at the 2010 FA market for the Knicks it is fairing out to where Amare may be the Knicks star FA.
I luv Amare athleticism however, I dont want him as a Knick.
Every deal we made with Phoenix we came out "LOSERS" in the deal.
Amare had to many star-players around him and his level stayed the same.

Harrington is not a rebounder or passer, he is best use as a scoring big-SF inwhich u must play him alongside of a rebounder (like Lee).
For some reason I thought we would have rookie Jordan Hill developing his rebounding and defensive skills alongside of Harrington throughout the preseason games averaging a little more than 24 minutes per game.
If we are not going to develope our first pick in the Preseason games to get familiar with the league, then I see short spurts of playingtime every other other game this regular season.....making us go after Amare with the FA money in the offseason.

That's a team that could make the playoffs this year. And then add a max-free agent in 2010 and the Knicks are legit contenders.

Golden State is going to get desperate to unload Jackson and Ellis real soon. They realize there is no way they can get equal value since nobody wants those long/large contracts. Plus, they have a moron for a GM now.

If we could package Jeffries and Curry with either a combination of draft picks or Douglas, Hill and/or Chandler and maybe Nate it might be enough to convince GS to make the trade (depending on how desperate the situation gets). Especially since they would get those 2 huge contracts off the books by the end of next year. And the Knicks would be able maintain their cap flexibility for 2010.

This trade would be more likely to happen next offseason though. Maybe around draft day (if Jackson and Ellis are still there). Curry's and Jeffries' contracts will become relatively valuable by draft day next year.

************************************************** ******

Anyway, I realize Donnie is not going to do this but I'm just saying we should explore trading Jeffries and Curry for talented players that are unhappy with their current teams and have long contracts. I really don't think there is any chance of getting rid of Curry and Jeffries for expiring contracts and Donnie should be looking at other options.

They can try to trade Stephen Jackson to Dallas for junk and problems. Or to Cleveland for other problems and other junk.

If the Warriors can't do either, then waive him, send him home or buy him out entirely.

Those are the last viable options for the Warriors and Jackson, who have 35.5 million reasons to wonder what the hell they have gotten themselves into here.

It's the immovable contract meeting the irresistible farce.

Basically: How can the Warriors trade Jackson if they're the only team gullible enough to commit so much money to such a flammable player?

But they do have to move him. That's not up for debate.

"We're still going to try to accommodate him," coach Don Nelson tepidly said this week of Jackson's trade wish. "But it's not that easy to do."

No lie. For now, to build trade value, the team and player would benefit immensely from a cease-fire.

But even if both sides act like angels, the Warriors almost certainly will have only one or two mildly interested parties — I'm guessing just Cleveland and Dallas, but maybe neither.

Plus, the Warriors are guaranteed to be offered little to nothing of true value in return.

"I don't think it's hard," said Jackson, who is owed $35.5 million for the next four seasons. "I know there's a lot of teams that want me . . .

"I can play the game. I don't know exactly what the conversations are, but I don't think it's as hard as those
people say it is."

Sorry, Stephen, you're less tradeable than even Memphis forward Zach Randolph, a loopy soul who happens to have a shorter contract, plays a more important position and is several years younger.

For now, NBA sources say that the Warriors are highly motivated to trade Jackson but have only received laughable offers — lousy teams looking to dump gargantuan contracts.

The No. 1 and maybe the only realistic goal for Robert Rowell, Larry Riley and crew: Do not duplicate what the Warriors did in 1999 when they panicked and sent Latrell Sprewell to the New York Knicks for multiple foul contracts.

Of course, to avoid a bad-for-worse trade, the Warriors could soon weigh walking away from Jackson.

They can do that by suspending him indefinitely (with pay), by finding a reason to suspend him without pay (which the union will challenge) or by entering discussions about a devastating 90-percent buyout.

Let's consider a buyout the team's last, desperate resort, depending on Jackson's actions and the Warriors' ability to brush them off.

Let's analyze the trade atmosphere. Jackson has named Cleveland, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and NewYork as preferred destinations, and it's very safe to say that this is the totality of likely options.

We can eliminate the Knicks, because they're not going to take on Jackson's long-term salary, and Houston, because Yao Ming's injury means the Rockets are rebuilding.

We can cross out the Spurs, because they are the NBA's smartest fiscal team and just acquired a better, younger wing — Richard Jefferson.

So unless there's a major injury on a contending team, the list is down to two contenders: Only Dallas and Cleveland could take on Jackson's salary and personality and believe they're worth the trouble.

If it's Dallas, the best package might be the troubled Shawne Williams and an add-in such as Kris Humphries. (It wouldn't include Josh Howard, who is too valuable as an expiring contract.)

If it's Cleveland, a possible combination might be the troubled Delonte West plus a series of add-ins. (It wouldn't include center Zydrunas Ilgauskas, who has an expiring contract and might be needed to back up Shaquille O'Neal.)

We can theoretically include New Orleans, if the Hornets want to get out of Peja Stojakovic's remaining $29.3 million through next season. But Jackson's salary doesn't match, which seriously complicates any trade talks.

Oh, there's one man out there with a history of taking on Jackson-like deals. But unfortunately for the Warriors, Isiah Thomas isn't allowed to make trades at Florida International.

If FIU needs a new athletic director, the Warriors' team president might be an ideal candidate. Rowell and Isiah would be an incomparable tandem.

This really needs to be an option that Donnie should look into. Nobody wants Jackson's and Ellis' massive long term deals. But the two deals almost equal Jeffries and Curry's salaries. If we were to throw in some combination of draft picks and/or young talent, Golden State may actually go for it. This way we would have a starting PG and SG (we desperately need both) and we would still maintain our cap flexibility for the 2010 offseason. Win/Win.

I've made it pretty clear in multiple threads that the 2010 plan will not work if Jeffries and Curry are still on the books by this year's trade deadline. And there is no way we can trade those guys for expiring contracts. I just hope Donnie sees this as well and is looking for alternatives. If nothing is done by next offseason, we're f*cked. There's no simpler way to put it.

This really needs to be an option that Donnie should look into. Nobody wants Jackson's and Ellis' massive long term deals. But the two deals almost equal Jeffries and Curry's salaries. If we were to throw in some combination of draft picks and/or young talent, Golden State may actually go for it. This way we would have a starting PG and SG (we desperately need both) and we would still maintain our cap flexibility for the 2010 offseason. Win/Win.

I've made it pretty clear in multiple threads that the 2010 plan will not work if Jeffries and Curry are still on the books by this year's trade deadline. And there is no way we can trade those guys for expiring contracts. I just hope Donnie sees this as well and is looking for alternatives. If nothing is done by next offseason, we're f*cked. There's no simpler way to put it.

Do you see something wrong there? If Monta and Jackson make about the same money as Curry and Jeffries then our cap space situation stay the same.

But actualy monta and jackson make 1.3 mill more than curry and jeffries so will have 1.3 mill less cap space.

Although they are good players I dont want neither here(maybe monta cuz he is young) cuz one is old with a lot of nba milage (jackson is 31) and the other is imature.